Holmes v. Romulus, City of et al
ORDER DENYING 46 Motion to Quash--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:16-cv-10610
Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
CITY OF ROMULUS and
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (DE 46)
On or about September 1, 2017, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Tim Fifer of
Fifer Investigations to produce documents and appear for a deposition. (DE 46-3.)
Currently before the Court is Defendants City of Romulus and David Brooks’
September 7, 2017 motion to quash subpoena, Plaintiff’s response, and
Defendants’ reply. (DEs 46, 47, 50).
Chief Judge Hood referred this motion to me on September 14, 2017 (DE
48), and a hearing was originally noticed for October 10, 2017. (DE 49). At the
parties’ request, the hearing was re-noticed for November 21, 2017. (DE 51.) On
the date set for hearing, attorneys Ronnie E. Cromer, Jr. and Laurel F. McGiffert
appeared in my courtroom, and the Court entertained oral argument.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument of counsel, and
for all of the reasons stated on the record, which are herein incorporated by
reference, Defendants’ motion to quash (DE 46) is DENIED. In sum, Plaintiff
may seek from Timothy Fifer, subject to an appropriate protective order,
documents and deposition testimony that relates, refers and/or pertains to the
Defendant City of Romulus’s background investigation regarding and/or decision
to hire Defendant David Brooks. Defendants may redact any personal and/or
private information relating to Defendant David Brooks, such as addresses,
telephone and social security numbers, family member names or addresses, and
personal financial and/or credit information, subject to production of a privilege
Further, as directed by the Court:
Defendants will provide an affidavit by Captain Joshua Monte, or
another appropriate affiant, explaining why the City of Romulus does
not have the attachments referenced in Timothy Fifer’s investigative
report regarding David Brooks, where those attachments might be
found, and the process used to review the investigative report and
attachments regarding David Brooks;
The parties will use their best efforts forthwith to draft a stipulated
protective order governing the documents and information sought in
the subpoena, and submit that stipulated protective order to the Court.
If the parties cannot agree on a protective order, they are directed to
contact my chambers for a conference call to discuss any disputed
issues. If an agreement cannot be reached at that time, the parties will
be directed to submit their proposed orders to the Court and it will
enter an appropriate order; and
No costs are awarded, for the reasons stated on the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on November 21, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?